Viktor Bérces: Evidence in Criminal Proceedings
›
Chaper VI. Continental-type evidence systems today
›
6.5. The Dutch model

6.5. The Dutch model

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

In the Netherlands, misdemeanours and petty offences are decided by a single judge, while more serious offences are judged by a three-member panel. Inquisitorial features clearly predominate in the procedures. This is mainly due to the rules governing the trial, which are characterised by the following features:

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

  • “one-stage” proceedings, during which all the relevant records are presented at the outset – including information about the accused’s previous life;
  • the rule indicating the “presumption of guilt” of the accused, that he has the right to make a statement, but not the obligation to take an oath;
  • there is no “cross-examination”: the court asks the questions first and then gives the prosecutor or the defence the opportunity to ask them;
  • the courts can also assess evidence obtained illegally, where appropriate;
  • witnesses are summoned by the prosecution or the court; if the defence submits a request to examine a person as a witness, it must give detailed reasons for its statement or submission;
  • court decisions are not based on witness testimonies but on the case file (minutes); the primary aim is to establish the material truth, from which the judge must seek to exclude all subjects;
  • there is no such thing as a “plea bargain”: in order to obtain a conviction, the prosecutor must in any case bring the case to trial, where the evidence is fully assessed by the court even if the accused has confessed; the function of the trial is therefore primarily to determine the circumstances of sentencing, not criminal responsibility;
  • no one can be convicted on the basis of a single piece of evidence (e.g. a confession or DNA match), at least two pieces of evidence are required for a conviction, and it is also regulated by law that convictions based solely on the testimony of anonymous witnesses cannot be convicted.1
1 K. Bárd (2011) ibid. 33.
chevron_left
chevron_right
Tartalomjegyzék navigate_next
Keresés a kiadványban navigate_next
A kereséshez, kérjük, lépj be!
Könyvjelzőim navigate_next
A könyvjelzők használatához
be kell jelentkezned.
Jegyzeteim navigate_next
Jegyzetek létrehozásához
be kell jelentkezned.
    Kiemeléseim navigate_next
    Mutasd a szövegben:
    Szűrés:
    Kiemelések létrehozásához
    MeRSZ+ előfizetés szükséges.
      Útmutató elindítása
      delete
      Kivonat
      fullscreenclose
      printsave